Official Languages Committee on Feb. 24th, 2026

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

As for the federal government, there wasn't any talk of the vitality framework until 2023, when it was included in the Official Languages Act.

We're all wondering what this looks like, still.

There should be less ambiguity. It has to be clearer. Again, we don't want to be in competition.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

We agree that it's ambiguous. There's a real injustice right now. As you said, it takes resources to participate in consultations, but the federal government gives resources only to English-language lobby groups. There's nothing for French-language lobby groups or advocacy groups in Quebec.

Do you agree with that?

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

That's outside of our remit today.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

It's a bit relevant, because you say it's ambiguous. We have to clearly define the concepts, and that's what I'm trying to do. How would those concepts be defined?

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Either the act gives you the opportunity to do that, or it doesn't. Refer to the modernized Official Languages Act to see what the regulations allow you to do. For us, it's unclear how these regulations will translate.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I can name you all the sections of the act that support French in Quebec. There are a number of them, particularly in part VII. However, as you say, there's some ambiguity. The ministers responded that they were defending and protecting French in Quebec. That's something new. Before, they always said that they were defending English in Quebec and French outside Quebec. Since 2020, they have been saying that they're defending French in Quebec, but we haven't seen any concrete action.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

There are only 15 seconds left, so I'd ask for a quick answer.

[Marion Sandilands]

Paragraph 41(1)(a) of the Official Languages Act creates an obligation for federal institutions to protect and promote the vitality of the English-speaking community of Quebec. That is the basis for our presence here today, and that is the basis of the submissions that TALQ is making today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

We're going to pass to the next round of questions. This will be our last round.

As I told you, I'm going to be very strict on the time so that we can finish the round.

I may cut you off, and I apologize in advance.

Mr. Dalton, you have the floor.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you for your testimony and for what you're bringing here.

I was a little concerned, not by your presentation but more by some of the things you're saying. On the one hand, you like the objectives, but the objective goals and standards, with the regulations and the way of measuring things, are lacking. This seems to be a bit in flux.

Some of the things you're saying really resonate with me. The Liberal government in general—this is a bit of an aside—talks about housing and big bureaucracies, but the actual results are not there. Things get worse. They talk about major projects. There are nice announcements, but the substance is missing.

It really concerns me when I hear from you that you kind of like the fluff—which is what you're seeing—but there are no real teeth; there's no real movement. I wonder if you could just elaborate a bit more on that.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Implementation is always difficult. The law, as we see it, does not necessarily give you a lot of scope for this implementation. You can only go so far.

It's not sufficient to discharge Canada's responsibility on part VII. We agree with that. The part VII regulations, by their very nature and apparently some degree of choice, are limited in scope. The architecture emphasizes procedural compliance, analysis, consultation, documentation and operational process, not outcomes. That's the concern.

There is some improvement. I've been in official languages for a long time. I have seen part VII. They've tried it before; this is not the first time. We're telling folks that they've come some way, but they've not come all of the way. We applaud the progress, but I'm not sure that we will get to the real meat and outcome with the process they have.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

TALQ has asserted that the Government of Canada must both protect and promote the French language in Canada, including in Quebec, and enhance the vitality of the English-speaking minority community. To what extent do these objectives conflict with each other? Is it possible to create programs that can achieve both objectives? Do you have any examples?

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

I'm not sure how that's going to happen.

Let me give you an example of when funding happens. When money is transferred from the feds to the province, the hope of the provincial government is that there will be global transfers. That's the hope of the provincial government. When they get a global transfer, how are they going to apportion it to the francophones and anglophones? How will that happen?

We've seen money being transferred to Quebec. We've seen programs transferred to Quebec that have not been able to be used by the English-speaking community. There was a youth employment strategy program a few years ago that was transferred for five years. It was renewed a year or so ago. The money came in, but our groups didn't have access. Not only that, out of the $30 million that came in, I'm told that $19 million went to the consolidated fund.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have 30 seconds.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

I'm going to interrupt. I have 30 seconds.

If we had a genie here with a wand who could give you one specific wish, what would it be? Be as concrete as possible with that one wish.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Review the act. We've said it in our recommendations. Out of the five recommendations, four say to review the act.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Dalton.

I now give the floor to Madame Mingarelli for five minutes.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today, Ms. Martin-Laforge and Ms. Sandilands.

Do you believe the regulation adequately reflects the realities and demographic trends of English-speaking communities in Quebec?

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Could you ask that question again? I'm sorry.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Yes. Do you believe the regulation adequately reflects the realities and demographic trends of English-speaking communities in Quebec?

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

I think that's hard to tell. The act, from what we've seen, talks about consultation.

We believe that the English-speaking community is a very unique community. We would have to see how this uniqueness is translated by the institutions in serving the needs of the English-speaking community.

That's a good question for when we review the act. We will be able to tell if, in fact, the regulations have achieved that goal.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

How can the regulation better ensure that federal institutions take proactive rather than reactive measures to support English-speaking communities in Quebec?

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

I think it's consultation, but consultation that is not just checking a box. It's consultation that is attuned to the priorities of the English-speaking community.

We are a community without adequate capacity. We do not have federally funded organizations in the way the rest of Canada does, and that's not a criticism of the FCFA and their organization.

Until relatively recently, in the last 20 to 30 years, the English-speaking community was never really seen as a minority community. It's relatively recently that we have seen ourselves as a minority community. It's certainly in the last seven or eight years that we feel we have to say, “Wait a minute; we're a minority community. How will you—the government of the province, and the feds as well—be treating us?” We've woken up to the fact that we are a unique community in a majority Quebec situation. That's a difficult place to be sometimes.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

This leads perfectly into my next question. In situations where federal measures to support English-speaking Quebeckers may intersect with provincial measures aimed at protecting French, how should federal institutions determine the appropriate balance?